Appeal 6001154

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council in its statement of case, advises that a fourth reason for refusal relating to the location of the development, was missed from their decision notice. Their reasoning and conclusion on this matter was set out in the officer’s delegated report. The report also cites concerns in respect of the outlook for neighbouring occupiers. This matter was also not included as a reason for refusal in the decision notice, nor was it explicitly mentioned within their statement of case. Taking account of the officer’s report and interested party comments, I have decided that these two matters should be main issues in my decision.

The appellant did not comment on these matters in their appeal statement. It is also not clear whether they had sight of the delegated report or interested party comments at the time the Council’s decision was issued. Nonetheless, they have been given the opportunity to comment during the appeal and as such, no parties would be prejudiced with me taking these matters into account.

The Council refers to existing dwellings on [address] only. I saw from my site visit, and interested parties have made the point, that the closest properties to the appeal site are on [address], which is accessed from [address]. I have assessed the proposal on this basis.

During the application process, the appellant advanced drawings indicating a revised visibility splay1 and swept path analysis2, however they were not a part of the plans and information that the Council based its decision on. These drawings provide clarification and do not evolve the scheme. Therefore, I do not consider that they make a substantial difference or fundamental change to the 1 Proposed Section 278 A023/343/P/16 rev A 2 [name] A023/343/P/20 rev A development. The Council and interested parties have also had the opportunity to comment on this evidence. I have therefore taken them into account.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has advanced a range of further drawings, referred to as documents 60 to 71. They show the addition of seven ‘ancillary parking’ spaces located parallel to the access road, in place of an area of landscaping. These amendments evolve the scheme and have knock-on implications for the assessment of such matters as character and appearance, highway safety and surface water drainage. I consider that if I were to accept the plans, it would prejudice the interests of the Council, interested parties and consultees, who may have observations to make. Thus, I have not taken this material into account.

During the course of the appeal, the main parties and the Environment Agency (EA) were provided with an opportunity to comment on the EA’s updated national flood risk assessment mapping (NaFRA2). The comments have been taken into account.

The site visit was arranged as an ‘access required site visit,’ although I was not able to proceed on that basis. However, I was able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas, and hence my visit was carried out unaccompanied.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the development would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on flood risk; • the effect of the development on highway safety with regard to access and the provision of parking; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is a large plot of grassed land that lies primarily to the rear of [address], with access taken from [site address] . In the vicinity of the appeal site and northwards, are detached dwellings and other building groups, set within large, spacious grounds. These are interspersed with expansive views of agricultural land, giving this area a semi-rural character. To the south is the denser development of residential housing, within the settlement. The change in character is also experienced by way of the vehicle speed limit change from 30 to 50 miles per hour.

The appeal site has a simple hedgerow frontage with a gap for access, with views through into the spacious and undeveloped field, which is framed by trees on the north and west sides. The rear of the dwellings on [address] are visible along the southern boundary, and so the transition from the suburban, to the rural character area is seen.

The development would comprise six detached dwellings fronting a long and straight access road. The narrower, eastern portion of the site would be taken up by the road, and soft landscaping on either side. The dwellings would be positioned far back within the site and would be built on ground raised from the existing levels. This would require land re-modelling in the form of sloping gardens and driveways and retaining features along the northern boundary.

The way the road would be laid out, and how strongly it would dominate the frontage and views into the site, mean that the development would read as backland when viewed from [site address] . This impression would be reinforced by the weak frontage to the site. It would not respond positively to either the suburban developments to the south or semi-rural character of the area to the north for this reason. Whilst the design and scale of the proposed dwellings is broadly coherent with nearby development, and views from north would be limited, their position on raised ground would increase their prominence such that they would jar with the surrounding built form. Moreover, the dimensions of the garages are such that on road parking would be likely to occur. This would result in a cluttered appearance on the visually dominant access road. I will return to this point in more detail, later in my decision.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development would be of significantly detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan3. Amongst other things, this policy requires new development to be of a high standard of design appropriate to the local context.

Policy SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan, restricts development that has an adverse effect on the open and rural character of the countryside, and so the development would conflict with this part of the policy. The policy also requires a balanced judgment between any such harm and substantial public benefits. I will address this later in my decision.

Policy SP1 of the Wyre Local Plan sets out the spatial approach to the sustainable extensions of towns and rural settlements, including Hambleton. The policy requires development to take place within settlement boundaries unless development elsewhere in designated countryside areas is supported by another policy in the Local Plan. Criterion 5 states that development outside settlement boundaries will be strictly limited, amongst other things.

Policy SP4 specifies that development will only be granted in countryside areas if it is for one or more of a specified range of purposes. In relation to housing, these are rural workers dwellings, affordable housing and holiday accommodation, and re-use of certain building types.

It is not disputed that the site lies outside of the Hambleton settlement boundary, or that for the purposes of the local plan, the site is within a designated countryside 3 Wyre Local Plan (2011 – 2031) (incorporating partial update of 2022), adopted 26 January 2023. area. There is also nothing before me to indicate that the proposed housing would be for the purposes specified in Policy SP4.

The centre of Hambleton is only a short distance from the site, and a range of schools, shops, churches and amenities are within walking distance. A bus stop is also close to the site, which I am advised has onward services to Blackpool, [name], Lancaster and other smaller settlements.

These factors indicate that a range of facilities and public transport can be accessed on foot. However, future occupiers of the proposed development would be required to cross the road in order to use the footway, which is well-lit in the direction of Hambleton only. This is also at a location where vehicle speed limits transition from 50 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour or vice versa. During my site visit, I observed that [site address] is relatively heavily trafficked and there is a bend in the road a short distance north, which obscures visibility from the access along the road, not only for pedestrians but cyclists and other users. This poor visibility, coupled with vehicle speeds would make crossing or turning right, difficult. Thus, whilst the site is not isolated, the walking and cycling routes are not desirable. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that a range of services and facilities would be conveniently accessible by non-car based modes.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development would not be suitably located. In this regard the proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies SP1 and SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan, set out above.

Policy CDMP2 of the Wyre Local Plan requires the most up-to-date Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to be taken into account. It must also be demonstrated that development will not be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, and would not lead to increased flood risk elsewhere, amongst other things. Where development is proposed in areas at risk of flooding, the [name] should be applied which must demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites at lower risk. There is no dispute between the parties that the [name] is passed.

Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, and where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. To achieve this the Planning Practice Guidance sets out a three step approach to decision-making, of assessing, avoiding, and finally managing and mitigating flood risk4.

Paragraph 175 of the Framework provides a caveat to the sequential test requirement. This is in situations where a site specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any sources, now and in the future.

The PPG5 states that where a site specific flood risk assessment clearly demonstrates that the layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure that 4 Paragraph: 004 [name]: 7-004-20220825; Revision date: 25 08 2022 5 Paragraph: 027 [name]: 7-[phone] occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, then the sequential test need not be applied.

The revised flood risk assessment6 (revised FRA) notes that there is no history of flooding at the site but acknowledges that built development would be on land that is at risk of both tidal flooding and sewage surcharges. This relates to foul sewer flooding of the combined sewer in [site address] , and overtopping of tidal defences as the primary tidal flood mechanism.

The Environment Agency (EA), advises that it has not published any updated flood map datasets under NaFRA2, that would provide new site levels at the appeal site7. I acknowledge that the appellant considers there to be a reduced defended modelled tidal extent and height, and an associated reduction in defended tidal data. However, there is no evidence before me as to the source or justification for these calculations, which limits the weight I attribute to them.

In any case, the modelled design, flood depth scenario used in the revised FRA is 7.67 – 7.71 metres AOD for a 1:200 year flood event including climate change and [address]. It is acknowledged that this represents an extreme scenario, however there is no evidence before me to indicate that a different maximum flood depth should be used. On this basis, the calculated depth of on-site flooding would exceed 2 metres.

The proposed finished floor levels would be approximately 1 metre below design flood level. However, there is no evidence that the structural implications of the potential flood depth have been taken into account, with mitigation measures such as allowing water to pass through a void, or built-in structural resilience. The effectiveness of the proposed stanking boards relies on them being put in place prior to a flood event. Even with a [name] and Evacuation Plan and raised electrics and ventilation points, there may be events where warnings may not be heard, or occupiers may not be at home to install the stanking boards.

As such, the proposed measures cannot be relied upon to make the development appropriately flood resistant and resilient and it is not shown that the dwellings could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment, as required by paragraph 181 of the Framework.

The surface-water drainage strategy, includes attenuation measures such as a pond and storage crates, and also relies upon the adjacent watercourse to drain the remainder of the site. However, the strategy does not incorporate site perimeter drainage. It is therefore not shown that the development will not lead to an increased risk of exacerbating flood risk elsewhere.

I am mindful that the appellant sought to address the concerns of the Council during the application process. This included suggesting a further land level increase, and by seeking details of sewer surcharging in order to provide mitigation measures. However no such details have been provided. In any case, such revisions would have implications for assessing visual impact and the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers as well as flood risk. I am 6 Flood Risk Assessment, [name], January 2025. 7 EA letter, dated 26 February 2026, Ref: NO/2024/116501/02-L02 therefore not persuaded that this matter could be resolved by imposing planning conditions requiring land levels and revised drainage details to be agreed.

Drawing all of the above strands together, it is not adequately shown that occupiers would remain safe from flooding for the lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would lead to harmful flood risk. This would be in conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CDMP2 of the Wyre Local Plan, and the Framework.

Policy CDMP6 of the Wyre Local Plan requires new development to demonstrate safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from, and circulation within a site. It also requires appropriate provision for parking in accordance with the Council’s standards unless it is demonstrated that different provision is justified.

There is no dispute that junction visibility splays for the development should achieve 2.4 metres x 53 metres in a southerly direction, and 2.4 metres x 114 metres in a northerly direction.

The revised visibility splay drawing shows that in a northerly direction, the line cuts across a wall corner positioned adjacent to the proposed access and passes through the verge that sits forward of that property. The wall encloses the grounds of the adjoining property, and within the verge there are three well established trees.

There is nothing before me to indicate that the walling and trees are within the appellant’s ownership or control. During my site visit I observed that they are of a height and position that obscure visibility in a northerly direction, such that the required visibility would not be achieved.

The revised swept path analysis indicates that refuse vehicles can turn within the site in a forward gear and there is nothing before me to indicate that the refuse vehicle dimensions are not to Lancashire County Council specifications. However, the tracking diagram also shows that after approaching the site from the south, large vehicles would need to manoeuvre into the opposite carriageway to enter the site. Due to the proximity of this conflict area with the site junction, this may lead to large vehicles halting in [site address] waiting for the access to clear, and in turn, impeding visibility for those drivers exiting the site. This would lead to direct conflict between vehicles.

Given these findings, together with the lack of a safe pedestrian crossing that I have already identified, I am not persuaded that safe access could be achieved for all users.

The proposed garage dimensions are 15.7 sqm for house types 1 and 2, and 15.6 sqm for house type 3. Notwithstanding the appellant’s assertion that the site meets and exceeds the required parking provision and includes electric charging, the proposed garages fall well short of the 6 metres x 3 metres dimensions, required by the Council’s parking standard in the Wyre Local Plan. The standard is clear that garages falling below these dimensions would not be classed as parking spaces, and there is no evidence before me to justify an alternative, lesser number of spaces. The lack of viable parking spaces would be likely to lead to on street parking, impeding the highway within the site, to the detriment of highway safety.

It is acknowledged that the development would not result in a severe cumulative impact on the transport network. Nevertheless, paragraph 116 of the Framework and Policy CDMP6 are also clear that site-specific development must also be acceptable on highway safety grounds.

Taking the above factors together, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety with regard to access and the provision of parking. As such the development would conflict with Policy CDMP6 of the Wyre Local Plan, and the Framework.

The rear elevations of Plots 1 to 4 would face towards the rear elevations and gardens of dwellings on [address]. As confirmed by the topography survey8, I observed on my site visit that the existing ground levels within the gardens of [address], are lower than those on the appeal site.

Even though the site land levels would be increased, the proposed separation distances would significantly exceed the guideline 21 metres between facing rear windows, and 10.5 metres between main elevations and the boundary with adjacent dwellings, as cited in SPG49. Moreover, while the length of the proposed rear gardens varies, the watercourse referred to variously as ‘dyke’ or ‘ditch,’ between the site and neighbouring gardens, provides the additional required separation. As such, the dwellings would be sited in a manner that would neither dominate the outlook from neighbouring dwellings, nor harmfully overlook them, to the extent that would harm the occupiers’ living conditions.

Plot 5 would be angled such that its blank side elevation would face the side gable of [address], which includes a single-storey sunroom. However, this is broadly north facing, obliquely angled away from Plot [address] proximity to existing garden vegetation. As such the privacy and outlook afforded to the occupants of No. 7 would be safeguarded.

For these reasons, the development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to outlook and privacy. As such, and in this regard, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan. This policy restricts development that adversely effects nearby residents, amongst other things.

The proposed development would boost the supply of open market homes in the area. I am mindful that this would bring economic benefits such as from construction jobs and spend in the local area. There would also be a range of ecological enhancements. These benefits weigh in favour of the proposal.

The proposal would be capable of safeguarding acceptable living conditions for neighbouring occupiers, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. I am also told that the dwellings would comply with requirements for a level access 8 AO23/343/S/01 9 ‘4, Spacing Guidance for [name], Wyre Borough Council, Supplementary Planning Guidance’ threshold. The absence of harm in these respects are neutral factors that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concern that amended plans and information was not taken into account prior to the Council’s decision. However, this is not a matter I can consider under a Section 78 appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had sole regard to the planning merits of the proposal.

Policy SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan requires that the development must be necessary to achieve substantial public benefits, where harm to the open and rural character of the countryside is found. The Council is able to demonstrate a current housing land supply position in excess of 5 years and as such the weight attributed to the supply of a small number of open market homes is minimal. Ecological enhancement measures are modest and site specific. As such it is not shown that the development is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits. The benefits, therefore, do not outweigh the harm to the open and rural character of the countryside.

The proposal would conflict with the policies of the Local Plan as set out above and would be in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.